The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

I'm no expert, but isn't this also true with Quantum Physics? Classical Newtonian Physics is a fairly concrete theory of physics for practicality's sake, but also limited in scope when you look at all the phenomena out there that defies its principles.

Yes. Classical physics may be more intuitive, but it is deeply wrong in its description of the world. Quantum mechanics may be unintuitive, but as far as we can tell it is the most correct description of the world of any kind that mankind has ever devised.

Originally Posted by snapper

Schrodinger's Cat is Quantum Physics and sure there is uncertainty involved in it due to Heisenburg's uncertainty principle but the cat is either alive or not.

No, actually before the measurement is preformed, the cat is absolutely in a superposition of live and dead.

Just like around an atom, an electron is in a wavefunction and not at a point or moving in an orbit. The wavefunction around the atom IS the electron, we just find a point when we try to measure it's position.

Neither of the above occurs because WE are uncertain about the outcome. Quantum mechanical objects inherently exist as wavefunctions.

The reason the above seems weird is that modern physics has no plausible description of just what a measurement is. Therefore, it also has no real good description of what time itself really is.

Yes. Classical physics may be more intuitive, but it is deeply wrong in its description of the world. Quantum mechanics may be unintuitive, but as far as we can tell it is the most correct description of the world of any kind that mankind has ever devised.

Huh, I suddenly don't feel as bad getting that C in Physics 101 then.

Originally Posted by Versus

Lets pretend that communist use feminism as a weapon to destroy US. How this practice in family courts, plays for them?

If third-wave Tumblrina feminism was a low-key communist movement? I'm not sure I follow. In any event, wasn't Soviet communism highly critical of the concept of independent women?

Used to be decades ago, the grading curve in engineering, science, etc. was centered on a C. A 2.0 GPA for an engineer was the average GPA for a graduate, and wasn't looked down upon. There's been significant grade inflation since then. Perhaps it has something to do with the grading systems being used over in the liberal arts departments, where, perhaps, this whole "inflated self-esteem" thing got the ball rolling, which then got carried over to the engineering and sciences departments.

Originally Posted by Red Team

If third-wave Tumblrina feminism was a low-key communist movement? I'm not sure I follow. In any event, wasn't Soviet communism highly critical of the concept of independent women?

1917-late 1920s Soviet Communism pushed the idea of free love, that marriage was an oppressive, capitalist, patriarchal institution designed to oppress women, etc.

In the 1920s Soviet Union, all one had to do to get a divorce was mail the soon-to-be ex-spouse a "divorce" postcard. When the soon-to-be ex-spouse got the postcard, the divorce was final.

Stalin started enforcing social conservatism on Soviet society beginning in the late 20s or early 30s, as soon as he eliminated the rest of the troika to death, retirement, or exile. The Soviets started subsidizing weddings, imposed significant costs on divorce (which scaled greatly with each successive divorce), and gave higher pay to married men (as Henry Ford did).

There was also an institution of "Hero Mothers", in which women who had lots of children were given relatively significant financial awards and ongoing assistance from the state. The more children a woman had, much like the increasing scaled costs imposed on successive divorces, the benefits from the state would increasingly scale upward for each additional child. Abortion was also perfectly legal in the late 1910s/20s, and progressively became further restricted in the 1930s under Stalin, until it was practically banned.

Babushkas also received subsidies from the state, and essentially, the grandmother served as the mother, in the event the Soviet woman wanted to pursue a career, which was more or less optional in the Stalin era, with the exception of the WWII period.

After the Secret Speech, many of Stalin's ultra-conservative family policies began to gradually be rolled back.

Last edited by Ironduke; 02 May 18, at 11:30.

What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

Used to be decades ago, the grading curve in engineering, science, etc. was centered on a C. A 2.0 GPA for an engineer was the average GPA for a graduate, and wasn't looked down upon. There's been significant grade inflation since then. Perhaps it has something to do with the grading systems being used over in the liberal arts departments, where, perhaps, this whole "inflated self-esteem" thing got the ball rolling, which then got carried over to the engineering and sciences departments.

I never took engineering track myself, but some of my friends have and the GPA averages around 2.4-2.5 for more advanced courses. You were expected to ace the introductory courses to form a grade buffer for the inevitable hits you were going to take later in the program. My physics prerequisites were designed for Bio/Psychology majors, so they never went too much in depth beyond classical Newtonian physics so people were expected to at least make C's. I guess it never really gelled with me, but then again I never had to apply it anywhere so there's that. Nowadays, all I do are psychological/behavior assessments, interviews, and the occasional statistical analysis.

Oh, left movements are really bad on realistic assessments of human behavior. That's obvious, and it's what you get when you wed yourself to blank-slatism. I've been to other left-leaning forums where people get REALLY offended by even basic things like "women are not as strong as men" and "women are not capable of competing with the world's strongest men without ridiculous biological alterations."

That's what happens when ideology mates with pseudo-science. It makes it exponentially worse.

It's not simply the case that it's bullshit + bullshit, it's bullshit to the next order of magnitude.

I'm not saying social sciences don't have their uses. 20,000 years ago we were just Cro-Magnons, but since the dawn of civilization, we've obviously had to make some stuff up (e.g. the social sciences), to help us understand all the other stuff we've made up (which includes practically everything we say, think, and do that a Cro-Magnon did not) since then.

That's humans for you. We just make stuff up as we go along.

Last edited by Ironduke; 02 May 18, at 11:26.

What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

1917-late 1920s Soviet Communism pushed the idea of free love, that marriage was an oppressive, capitalist, patriarchal institution designed to oppress women, etc.

Marriage ties a man down how can it possibly be a patriarchal institution designed to oppress women

In the 1920s Soviet Union, all one had to do to get a divorce was mail the soon-to-be ex-spouse a "divorce" postcard. When the soon-to-be ex-spouse got the postcard, the divorce was final.

The resemblance to triple talaq nonsense is stunning. This is or should say was (receently struck down by the supreme court) something unique to Indian sharia not existing in the rest of the muslim world

Stalin started enforcing social conservatism on Soviet society beginning in the late 20s or early 30s, as soon as he eliminated the rest of the troika to death, retirement, or exile. The Soviets started subsidizing weddings, imposed significant costs on divorce (which scaled greatly with each successive divorce), and gave higher pay to married men (as Henry Ford did).

There was also an institution of "Hero Mothers", in which women who had lots of children were given relatively significant financial awards and ongoing assistance from the state. The more children a woman had, much like the increasing scaled costs imposed on successive divorces, the benefits from the state would increasingly scale upward for each additional child. Abortion was also perfectly legal in the late 1910s/20s, and progressively became further restricted in the 1930s under Stalin, until it was practically banned.

Babushkas also received subsidies from the state, and essentially the grandmother was essentially the mother, in the event the Soviet woman wanted to pursue a career, which was more or less optional in the Stalin era, with the exception of the WWII period.

After the Secret Speech, many of Stalin's ultra-conservative family policies began to gradually be rolled back.

Marriage ties a man down how can it possibly be a patriarchal institution designed to oppress women

I don't know. I'm sure there's some academic theorists in the early period Soviet Union who wrote about it. I'm citing The Russians by Hendrick Smith from memory, for the most part.

I don't really think much about marriage, to be honest, about whether it's fair, whether it's the man or woman who gets the best/worst of it, who is doing who wrong, whether it's an instrument of patriarchal control or not, etc. It's just not for me, and I couldn't care less. I don't like mushrooms, and I don't eat them or think about them. I live a simple, uncomplicated life, and that works for me.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I've unfortunately had to recently cut ties with many married friends, after enduring years of harassment, judgments, backbiting, and constantly being put on the defensive over the fact that I'm unmarried/don't have a girlfriend, that I do steak or beans contract work, and live in inexpensive places with few material possessions.

I'm happy, but they drag me down, and try to make feel like I'm this terrible person, simply because I'm not doing the same thing they're doing. I'm not doing anything wrong - they're the ones with problems. You be you, I be me, and if they've got a problem with that - they're not my friend.

When I'm in my 50s I might try to find a lonely, halfway decent spinster in her 40s. She has her place, I have mine, keep it that way, and we would visit sometimes.

The resemblance to triple talaq nonsense is stunning.

Women in the early Soviet era could send the divorce postcard too.

Last edited by Ironduke; 02 May 18, at 11:28.

What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

You sound like an old Marine Corps friend of mine. All about recreation.

His motto: "Go ugly, early" Don't spend till closing time trying (along with 20 other guys) to bag the hottest chick in the bar. Stake your claim to a less attractive one early and have some fun

Originally Posted by tbm3fan

Also sounds like my college roommate in my second year. We go to parties, he'd get blitzed, I drank only a little, and in the morning I'd ask him do you really see who you left with???

Low hanging fruits a.k.a short girls, fat/chubby girls, dark girls in an Indian context lack self-esteem. Some of them might have a better IQ than me, but they are always in need of EQ (emotional quotient). They are the most ignored. A beautiful girl will always have not so pretty girls as her besties. Why? Because then she gets all the attention. Women tend to make this distinction more often than men. This is where I come in to help. Everybody needs to experience that thing, I provide that. I have dated pretty, average, and not so pretty girls. But I have never dated someone so ugly that I can't take her to an eatery or to a mall. If I mind getting seen with her by my friends, I won't date her at all. I also introduce her as a friend to my male friends, if we ever cross paths.

Earlier it was tough getting rid of those women, so I would stop taking calls, reach late, gulp a peg and then meet, project myself as a drug addict/alcoholic, and if nothing worked then straight up insult them in the face. The way I see it is, it is better for them to cry in the short term, than us both in the long term. They would find a nice dude I am sure, who'd take care of them, and probably marry them, but I ain't that man. And btw, I never project myself to be a very nice guy, never, because I am not. But I listen, and that works.

Edit: These are my views only and in no way I meant to insult women or anyone else. Views might change in future depending upon sexual activity and religious affinity. :D

The Inquisition, and related institutions in other churches, tried for hundreds of years to ruin the party.

Christian Europe was a land with many more holidays than are celebrated today, festivals and feasts every couple of weeks or so, everybody drank nothing but small beer and watered down wine, all day, every day, peasant teens getting busy in the haylofts until their parents found out and made them get married, inns and taverns with busty wenches serving you food and drink and maybe a little extra something else if you tipped them well enough.

Nowadays in the US, the inquisitors typically work as law enforcement agents, for other government agencies, or act as meddlesome, busybody, intrusive "do-gooders". This is especially true after the whole business of torturing and killing "heretics" was outlawed in the Constitution, as well as by several other constitutions and bodies of law around the world.

No disrespect intended toward law enforcement agents on the forum - I'm not talking about you specifically, and you certainly have got a job to do and you're a necessary institution, but that being said, some among your ranks take things too seriously, and have a tendency to go too far.

The meddlesome, busybody, intrusive "do-gooders" should mind their own business, and look to their own sins before casting stones, as their sins are far worse and greater in number than those of the non-meddlers. Quite often, great evil is committed under the guise of doing good, in the name of religion, or simply by "helping" someone with their "problems".

I think it's worth noting - virtually every evil-doer in history genuinely thought they were the good guy.

The best and only course of action when confronted with these sorts of people, in my opinion, is to turn your back to them, not associate with them, and not be their friend.

Nice explanation. These things happen in India ever now. Women are killed by accusing them of witch-craft. I think it is her property that takes her life. Police don't register cases, even in cases of rape/murder. Bad people are real. Most of us never get to experience them.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Everyone is looking for recreation but your mate has wisdom. How old do people have to be to realise this. The majority wouldn't dare and this makes me think of something tangentially related

Guess where you find the hottest women.

Its not in the straight joints. Its in the gay ones when they have straight nights. Your regular frat, lager lout chav wouldn't want to be caught dead in a place like that : D

They don't get hit on as much

Whaaat? You mean you go hunting for a girl in a lesbian stronghold? Been successful?

A formerly enlisted girl, who once served on an aircraft carrier, that I'd met once upon a time, once told me: "it's all the same in the dark".

Sage words of wisdom.

Her particular comments at that time were because she was black, I was white, and I abruptly asked her, after an hour had gone by, why she only likes white guys.

Nothing to do with handsomeness/ugliness. But the same principle applies.

That's my opinion too. I find dark skinned girls hot. Don't kiss on the first date, make the girl comfortable, cook for her, excite her, start with the earlobes, and then see the beast within her unleash. I should stop.

If third-wave Tumblrina feminism was a low-key communist movement? I'm not sure I follow. In any event, wasn't Soviet communism highly critical of the concept of independent women?

Ok, since you know more about psychology and social science, what would be the consequences for the child's mental development if he or she is raised without a father? What personality traits does he or she develops?

That's my opinion too. I find dark skinned girls hot. Don't kiss on the first date, make the girl comfortable, cook for her, excite her, start with the earlobes, and then see the beast within her unleash. I should stop.

I saw lots of beautiful women when I was over there. Only got to look though. I like how they put oil and perfume in their hair. The head bobble while smiling is kind of cute too.

What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

If you slice the feminist movement into three parts as it is officially accepted, at first you have Suffragette movement. Those were women from an upper class fighting for women rights. That is the first wave feminism. Than during the sexual revolution, you have second wave feminism. That feminism is a feminism of the middle class. The third wave feminism started as soon as cold war ended and its a low class feminism. First wave feminism fought for legal rights, rights to vote and work. Second wave of feminism fought for civil rights and the third wave of feminism embraced diversity and individual rights. That is all fine and dandy but not if you take out of equation the female nature. So if you get that in, a different picture emerges.
The first wave feminism fought for equal rights, which means that woman can inherit her husband riches and status, either trough her death or divorce. It is a transfer of wealth in essence. Second wave of feminism is the same thing but for the middle class. Third wave feminism is for the lower class. In both cases it ensures the flow of the resources from man to a woman. In all three cases, man has no control over his resources and has no authority over women. In all three cases, by breaking status boundaries, it allows free movement, aka in every category woman is free to look for chad in her own group and move from one group to another. That is the social mobility to them, swinging form one "branch" to another until she reaches the top 20% of social strata. In all three cases, men are left, abandoned, neglected and trashed like a piece of garbage and forced to destroy cooperation as they became more atomized and reduced to pure animals that are fighting for the golden uterus. In that fight they are willing to sacrifice everything at the altar of reproduction. Society than is back to the primitive tribal structure and the jungle laws became effective again. Things like, empathy, compassion, virtue are punished and things like aggressiveness, selfishness, narcissism are rewarded and propagated.

Not sure if it's an eastern European thing... no offense, but I've noticed you and snapper, especially, have the tendency to post huge blocks of text, that run on without breaks.

I'd recommend separating each idea/subject contained within your posts onto its own line/paragraph. Even if the idea/subject is just a single sentence, hit the 'enter' key twice and put it on its own line.

Otherwise, nobody is going to take the time to read what looks like a big wall of text. They're just going to read the first couple of sentences and skip to the next person's post, that contained proper formatting.

Again, no offense intended.

Last edited by Ironduke; 03 May 18, at 03:42.

What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.